Bombay High Court · 2025-09-26
MANU @ MOHINDER MADHURESH S/O. VIVEKRANJAN ABROL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation / case number
- IA/1298/2020
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- MANU @ MOHINDER MADHURESH S/O. VIVEKRANJAN ABROL
- Respondent
- THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Judgment text excerpt
Digitally signed by PRASHANT PRASHANT VILAS VILAS RANE RANE Date: 2025.09.30 20:21:55 +0530 APPEAL 30_2017FINAL .DOC VSA/PSV/KK/PVR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2017 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.593 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3994 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.1640 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1298 OF 2020 Manu @ Mohinder Madhuresh … Appellant s/o. Vivekranjan Abrol R/o. Flat No. 304, Nisarggiri Apartment, Kalewadi Phata, Pune Originally inhabitant of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Versus The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Chaturshringi Police Station) …Respondents ____________ Mr. Tripurari Ray a/w. Ms. Riddhi Dhamecha i/b. Dhiren Shah for the appellant. Ms. M.M. Deshmukh Addl. P.P. for the State. ______________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. RESERVED ON: 28 APRIL 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 26 September 2025 _______________ Page 1 of 101 26 September, 2025 APPEAL 30_2017FINAL .DOC Judgment: (Per G.S. Kulkarni, J.) :- 1. The judgment has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis:- Sections Contents Paragraph Nos. A Preface 2-4 B Facts 5-8 C Evidence of Witnesses 9 - 14 D Evidence of the witnesses who were 15 - 26 friends of the deceased and the accused. E Other witnesses 27 - 30 F Medical Evidence 31 - 33 G Government Photographer 34 - 35 H Fingerprint Expert 36 - 37 I Deputy Director of Fingerprint 38 J Evidence on behalf of the Appellant/ 39 Accused K Submissions on behalf of the Appellant/ 40 - 55 Accused L Submission on behalf of the prosecution 56 - 68 M Analysis 69 - 109 A. Preface 2. This appeal by the appellant/accused questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence, challenging the judg